This Good Friday sermon, from Matt 27:38-54 and preached by Rev Darren Middleton at North Geelong Presbyterian Church, offers a solemn and theologically rich meditation on Christ’s cry of dereliction from the cross, “Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?” (Matthew 27:46). It seeks to draw hearers into the profound mystery of the Son’s forsakenness by the Father as the pivotal moment of atonement, where divine justice and mercy meet. The following analysis of this sermon as part of The Reformed Pastor’s “New Birth in Exile” series affirms the sermon’s many strengths while also identifying critical areas where it falls short, particularly in pressing the urgent necessity of the new birth and the experiential appropriation of Christ’s forsakenness.
From the outset, the preacher employs vivid personal anecdotes of abandonment to connect with the congregation’s own experiences of being forsaken or left behind. This pastoral strategy effectively opens a relational bridge to the gospel, making the theme of abandonment tangible and relatable. Although, one does want to question the validity of such a ploy on the grounds that anyone who has not experienced a sense of abandonment is unlikely to be moved by the anecdote. Along with the mismatch between forgetting about and leaving a child at the shopping centre, and the Father's never forsaking the Son (Ps 22:24).
The sermon then transitions into a sober exposition of the biblical text, situating Christ’s cry within the context of the darkness that covered the land from noon to three in the afternoon on a day the preacher refers to as “Good Thursday”. The preacher rightly identifies this darkness as a visible manifestation of the invisible wrath of God poured out on the sinless Son, drawing a powerful typological parallel to the darkness over Egypt in Exodus 10:22. This connection underscores the gravity of divine judgment and the unique suffering of Christ.
The sermon’s exposition of Psalm 22 alongside Matthew’s narrative is also a notable strength. It highlights the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy in the crucifixion, emphasizing that Christ was scorned, pierced, and mocked in precise accordance with the psalmist’s words. This redemptive-historical approach grounds the sermon firmly in Scripture and enriches the hearer’s understanding of the cross as the culmination of God’s covenantal plan.
Christology is carefully maintained throughout the sermon. The preacher affirms Christ’s sinlessness and perfect obedience, citing the Father’s declaration at the baptism and transfiguration that Jesus is the beloved Son in whom He is well pleased. This guards against any notion that Christ’s forsakenness was due to personal sin or divine displeasure. The mystery of the Trinity is acknowledged with pastoral sensitivity, affirming the eternal unity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit even as the Son experiences real abandonment on the cross. This tension is held without confusion or heresy, reflecting orthodox Reformed theology.
The sermon’s forensic emphasis is robust. It clearly teaches that Christ bore the Father’s wrath and judgment in the place of sinners, drinking the cup of divine displeasure so that believers might be spared. The preacher’s repeated assurance that believers will never be forsaken because Christ was forsaken for them offers profound pastoral comfort and experiential encouragement.
Yet, despite these strengths, the sermon exhibits significant shortcomings that undermine its full gospel efficacy, that become clear when evaluated through the lens of the New Birth In Exile protocol, which asks that Easter preaching confront hearers with death in Adam and summon them to life in Christ through the new birth.
Foremost among these shortcomings is the sermon’s failure to explicitly develop the doctrine of the hypostatic union and Christ’s true human experience of forsakenness. Now whilst I recognize the wisdom of keeping “obscure technical language” out of the pulpit, a brief explanation of the fulness of Christ’s humanity needs to be present if we are to rightly trust his work prevailed for our sins. So while the preacher correctly affirms that Christ was truly forsaken, the sermon does not sufficiently emphasize that Christ, as fully God and fully man, experienced this forsakenness as one of us, our older brother who fully identifies with our alienation and suffering. Without this incarnational emphasis, Christ risks being perceived primarily as a divine substitute rather than a sympathetic high priest who understands our weakness (Hebrews 4:15). This omission diminishes the experiential force of the gospel, leaving hearers less able to identify personally with Christ’s suffering and more as passive observers of a historical event.
Closely related is the sermon’s limited articulation of Christ’s covenantal role as the last Adam and firstborn of the new creation. The preacher rightly emphasizes substitutionary atonement but does not explicitly connect this to Christ’s inaugurating the new covenant and new creation (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:45–49; Romans 5:12–21). This absence weakens the foundation for the necessity of the new birth. The new birth is not merely a moral improvement or emotional response but a vital participation in Christ’s resurrection life, a covenantal union with the last Adam who reverses the curse of sin and death. Without this covenantal and Christological clarity, the sermon fails to press the hearer with the full urgency of regeneration. In many sermons this would not be as noticeable, but this sermon seeks to promote the covenantal nature of the atonement and even addresses the opening prayer to “Covenantal Father”.
The sermon’s gospel call, while present and clear in urging repentance and faith, lacks the forensic sharpness and existential urgency that the New Birth In Exile series is seeking evidence for in Easter preaching. The sermon does not vividly confront hearers with the terrifying reality of remaining under God’s wrath and forsakenness apart from Christ. The hearer is not portrayed as a fugitive fleeing divine judgment, and as if needing the refuge that only Christ can offer, but more as a contemplative observer. The absence of a stark “what if I don’t respond?” warning diminishes the sermon’s power to awaken conscience and provoke decisive repentance.
Moreover, the sermon does not explicitly identify Christ’s forsakenness as our forsakenness in a covenantal and forensic sense. There is some confusion in the sermon at this point. The focus is entirely upon the Father forsaking the Son and the mystery of such abandonment occurring within the Trinity. This is where clarity on the mystery of the incarnation may have provided greater clarity to Christ's work as the last Adam and the "death of death". The substitutionary language is strong but stops short of declaring that in Christ’s forsakenness, believers are covenantally identified and thus rescued from their own forsakenness. This missing link leaves the hearer disconnected from the gospel’s personal application, reducing the call to faith to a general invitation rather than a compelling summons to flee wrath and embrace new life, a matter that Matthew raised only two chapters earlier in Matt 25:30.
The pastoral consequence of these omissions is significant. Without a clear and urgent summons to new birth grounded in Christ’s covenantal identity as the last Adam and the experiential reality of His human forsakenness, there is a real risk that hearers remain informed passive spectators rather than repentant fugitives. The gospel call loses its existential edge, and the necessity of being born again is not sufficiently impressed upon the conscience. This undermines the sermon’s ability to effect a true sense of the reality of living in the last days and impressing the need for spiritual transformation.
In conclusion, the North Geelong Presbyterian Church Good Friday sermon is a theologically sound and pastorally encouraging exposition of Christ’s forsakenness and substitutionary atonement. It faithfully proclaims the weight of divine wrath borne by the Son and offers assurance to believers of God’s unfailing faithfulness. Yet, it falls short in pressing the urgent necessity of the new birth by insufficiently developing Christ’s incarnational identification with sinners, neglecting His covenantal role as the last Adam, and failing to summon hearers with the forensic urgency required to flee wrath and embrace regeneration. For gospel preaching to be fully faithful and effective, it must move hearers beyond passive observation to active participation in Christ’s death and resurrection through the new birth, confronting them with the dire consequences of unbelief and the life-giving power of faith.
